Search this Blog

Friday, February 24, 2017

“The Real Mr Darcy” or Perhaps Not?

Having just visited the “Jane Austen Among Family and
Friends” mini exhibition at the British Library, I thought I would share my
thoughts about the exhibition, but decided against it, as something else quite
captivating has cropped up! Don’t take me wrong, I did enjoy the exhibition,
which forms part of the several Jane Austen 200 festivities that take place
around Britain this year to mark the bicentenary of her death. It was
interesting to see some of Jane Austen’s teenage writings, as well as many of
her original letters where she lists people’s opinions on her works and
describes important personal events, such as her father’s death. The touching
writing desk and glasses were exhibited at Willis
Museum in Basingstoke last year. However, for understandable reasons,
photography is not allowed at the British Library and I didn’t come back with
much to share.

However, I thought I should mention my thoughts regarding the current hot topic of “The Real Mr Darcy”! It amuses me how scholars have taken up a criticism of the current representation of Mr Darcy in popular culture and have gone to lengths to prove that the popular image of Mr Darcy is utterly wrong! The topic has been on all the leading UK newsmedia with sensational headlines, such as “the 'Real’ Mr Darcy was nothing like Colin Firth” (the BBC) and “Real Mr Darcy was more ballet dancer than beefcake” (The Times), and so on and so forth. The whole discussion has left austenites almost betrayed, begging to keep the “hot Mr Darcy” of their imagination.

The whole discussion is based on revelations made by
professors John Sutherland and Amanda Vickery who spent a month researching the male beauty norms of Georgian
England, and actually commissioned “the first historically accurate portrait” of
Mr Darcy, created by the artist Nick Hardcastle. The portrait shows a
pale-skinned man with narrow shoulders and strong, defined legs, with long,
powdered hair, a narrow jaw and a long, pointy nose. The portrait would appear to
be a contrast to the muscular, angular-jawed Colin Firth who in the adaptation
has short, dark hair and slightly tanned skin.

Now I do feel that there is truth in that the noblemen of
the period would probably have spent a great deal of time indoors and been
quite pale in general, which clearly was the beauty norm of the day. It is also
quite likely that muscular torsos were associated with the working classes and,
as the main sports popular at the time were horse-riding and fencing, gentlemen
must have been more slender and had muscular legs rather than well-built upper
bodies. Many of the icons of the time period did have long, narrow jaws and
long, pointy noses, as did the Austen brothers in their portraits.

However, I am not at all convinced that the hairstyle
sported by Mr Darcy would necessarily have been long and powdered or that he would
have worn a wig. Jane Austen wrote the first version of Pride and Prejudice, then called "First Impressions", in 1796-1797, which she revised for publication in
1811-1812. As I have written previously,
the fashion revolution that significantly reduced the use of wigs and powder
took place in 1795, the same year as hair powder tax was introduced. After
that, powder was mainly used by liveried servants, lawyers and perhaps the
older generations, who in many ways preferred the old styles of fashion. Most young
people must have switched to the more modern, relaxed, shorter hairstyles that
required no powder. And I believe that Mr Darcy must have been at the forefront
of fashion, mixing with the fashionable crowds of London.

I am also skeptical of the claim that the character of Mr
Darcy was inspired by the First Earl of Morley. I don’t think that Jane Austen
would have admired him, as he was known to be mired in a sex scandal and that is a topic that Jane Austen dealt with strictly in Mansfield Park. She was a moral writer, with a strong sense of responsibility, critical of "loose morals", and Morley simply wasn't her type.

The novel is clearly a product of the Georgian rather than
of the Regency period, but we will never know for sure exactly how Mr Darcy
would have looked in the author’s imagination. Does it really matter?

What is so great about Colin Firth is not whether his looks
are a historically accurate match for Mr Darcy, but that he really brought the
character to life, appealing to the modern audience. Thanks to the adaptation,
Pride and Prejudice is now much better known all around the world, and I’m
thankful for it.

2 comments:

Anna, I like your measured arguments for the possible lack of a wig, and for the inspiration for Darcy not being the First Earl of Morley. I must admit I know nothing about the fashions of the time. I also had not heard about The Earl of Morley. But you are right. It doesn't matter what a charcter would haVE LOOKED LIKE IN THE AUTHORS IMAGINATION. hOWEVER i DO THINK EACH GENERATION CREATES ITS OWN dARCY. a FILM MAKER HAS TO MAKE A character ATTRACTIVE TO THEIR AUDIENCE.They have to take into account the times the film is made in. In old editions of Dickens novels the illustrations show the main characters looking decidedly unattractive to an audience nowadays but obviously fitted the requirements of attractiveness in Dickens times.

You are absolutely right, Tony. What is great about Pride and Prejudice is the fact that the story and the characters can be easily adapted from one culture to another, from one generation to another. We all know a Mr Darcy in our own world. Of course, Jane Austen must have had a clear idea of how her creation looked, as she went looking for portraits of her other characters at various galleries. But her idea of beauty wouldn't appeal to us and the Darcy of her imagination wouldn't be "our Darcy".